>Branko Čibej <brane@xbc.nu> writes:
>
>
>>I think *the* major task for 0.19 is:
>>
>> * Create a DB monitor that can detect crashed sessions and
>> automagically unwedge the DB.
>> * Stop creating transactions for read-only requests, and use
>> ordinary locks instead.
>> * Reduce the number of txn_checkpoint calls in our code, or even
>> eliminate them completely.
>>
>>
>
>All of these sound like good ideas (though I have some questions about
>the second one), but aren't they independent?
>
Oh, of course they're independent.

> We can reduce the
>frequency of txn_checkpoint calls without reducing the frequency with
>which we create transactions in the first place, and vice versa.
>
>Oh, I think I see: We can't switch to a locking system without a DB
>monitor to detect a deadlocked database and break the cycles? (Or am
>I just missing the point?)
>
No, we don't need a monitor for that. Failing to unlock an object is no
worse (or better) than crashing or ^C-ing while the client holds an
uncommitted DB transaction.